For one it is really hard to create a homogeneous community. The libertarians try for a while, and maybe you can by a seastead some day. But you would still give up a lot.
Then there is no real need to have a society consisting only of rationalists. There are many jobs that do not need a full blown rational person, so you always have some other people doing stuff. Probably a majority. You need some great minds in the right places, that is all.
Then there is the tendency that great minds often have trouble getting things done and this. Very bright people I met often achieve things because of their respective support network that takes care of more mundane things.
I experienced the occasional talk out while putting some project together, when action was required.
From the other angle I wonder how much reason can actually be implemented on a wider scale. I get the impression a lot of advancement was achieved by pumping the right cached ideas into the population.
And then you meat decent programmers who are creationists, or into homeopathy.
I think that the greatest barriers to creating an above-average IQ, above average rationality society are realpolitik-based, rather than some theoretical failing about how smart people can’t do practical stuff.
Think about it on the margin. Garret Jones has basically porved from existing data that +1 IQ point = +15% GDP per capita (or something of that form).
I’d expect that an average score increase of +0.1 on the cognitive reflection test would have a similarly large effect on getting rid of creationism, bad economic policies like protectionism, etc.
Well, this is why it seems like a silly idea to me.
If a society restricted to higher-IQ people would be richer, then everybody would want to join it. You’d have to get pretty draconian about keeping people out. Never mind that starting new countries is nearly a fantasy idea in the modern world. (Yeah, I know, if you will itit is nodream).
On the other hand, if we developed ways to biologically enhance human IQ, even a little, I’d see it as a public health measure. There’s also eugenics, I suppose, but I doubt most residents in democracies want to be part of a Bene Gesserit breeding program.
And if you wanted an organization restricted to the rational, there’s always the possibility of founding a university that admitted people on non-standard principles. Instead of looking for leadership, extracurriculars, etc., which basically selects for affluence and cooperativeness, you could actually just give a battery of tests and require students to write an essay that proves they can think rationally.
Most countries keep immigrants out fairly well, that’s not the problem.
The problem is, as you say, that you just can’t found a country.
As for a “rational” university, it is probably not big enough to internalize the benefits of rationality.
Really the question is “what is the most feasible group that would internalize the benefits of rationality and thereby prove empirically that rationality works?”
First some fictional evidence.
For one it is really hard to create a homogeneous community. The libertarians try for a while, and maybe you can by a seastead some day. But you would still give up a lot. Then there is no real need to have a society consisting only of rationalists. There are many jobs that do not need a full blown rational person, so you always have some other people doing stuff. Probably a majority. You need some great minds in the right places, that is all.
Then there is the tendency that great minds often have trouble getting things done and this. Very bright people I met often achieve things because of their respective support network that takes care of more mundane things.
I experienced the occasional talk out while putting some project together, when action was required.
From the other angle I wonder how much reason can actually be implemented on a wider scale. I get the impression a lot of advancement was achieved by pumping the right cached ideas into the population. And then you meat decent programmers who are creationists, or into homeopathy.
Lets collect some ideas on how to achieve it.
I think that the greatest barriers to creating an above-average IQ, above average rationality society are realpolitik-based, rather than some theoretical failing about how smart people can’t do practical stuff.
Think about it on the margin. Garret Jones has basically porved from existing data that +1 IQ point = +15% GDP per capita (or something of that form).
I’d expect that an average score increase of +0.1 on the cognitive reflection test would have a similarly large effect on getting rid of creationism, bad economic policies like protectionism, etc.
Well, this is why it seems like a silly idea to me.
If a society restricted to higher-IQ people would be richer, then everybody would want to join it. You’d have to get pretty draconian about keeping people out. Never mind that starting new countries is nearly a fantasy idea in the modern world. (Yeah, I know, if you will it it is no dream).
On the other hand, if we developed ways to biologically enhance human IQ, even a little, I’d see it as a public health measure. There’s also eugenics, I suppose, but I doubt most residents in democracies want to be part of a Bene Gesserit breeding program.
And if you wanted an organization restricted to the rational, there’s always the possibility of founding a university that admitted people on non-standard principles. Instead of looking for leadership, extracurriculars, etc., which basically selects for affluence and cooperativeness, you could actually just give a battery of tests and require students to write an essay that proves they can think rationally.
Most countries keep immigrants out fairly well, that’s not the problem.
The problem is, as you say, that you just can’t found a country.
As for a “rational” university, it is probably not big enough to internalize the benefits of rationality.
Really the question is “what is the most feasible group that would internalize the benefits of rationality and thereby prove empirically that rationality works?”